127. We were presented with strong views that
the Government's intention to make the NPQH mandatory for new
appointment to headship by 2002 was premature, although witnesses
agreed that, in the long term, a mandatory qualification was desirable.
We agree that the NPQH, adapted along the lines we have suggested,
should eventually become mandatory, but we recommend that the
Government reconsider its commitment to making the NPQH mandatory
by 2002 and give serious consideration to the likely impact on
the recruitment of headteachers. In the light of difficulty in
attracting candidates to the NPQH, we are concerned that there
is a danger of exacerbating recruitment difficulties, particularly
in primary schools.

128. We recommend that consideration be given
to approving a range of qualifications which would be equivalent
in status to the NPQH. These could include MBAs with a focus on
educational leadership and similar qualifications. This would
act in much the same way as the accelerated NPQH route. Accrediting
candidates who had already obtained sufficient qualifications
and experience would enable them to 'fast track' to headship without
following all of the NPQH programme. The 'accelerated' NPQH could
form a model for this kind of alternative route to NPQH status.

135. A common theme in evidence was that the standards
of support offered by LEAs varied; for instance, the National
Middle Schools' Foundation stated that support from LEAs is extremely
variable both between and within LEAs,[251]
and TLO Ltd stated that headteachers receive "variable but
often valuable support from their LEAs".[252]
SHA believed some LEAs were "outstanding", but argued
that the greatest problem with support from LEAs was that the
overwhelming majority of LEA officers or advisers have no experience
of secondary headship.[253]
This leads, as the NPHA noted, to some cases where LEA advisers
have very little credibility with headteachers, particularly advisors
who have not worked in schools for some time.[254]
A few submissions, notably those from Technology Colleges, were
more or less openly hostile to the LEAs. The Principal of the
Beauchamp Technology College described her LEA as "an irrelevant
nuisance which hinders our progress", and argued that its
services were "outrageously expensive".[255]

136. More and more, schools gain support from outside
the LEA or indeed outside the education world. The NAHT noted
that headteachers now rely more on their professional associations
(such as the NAHT itself) as LEAs' support has diminished in quantity
and/or quality over the years.[256]
This was a view backed up by a headteacher who noted the value
of the advice hotline provided by SHA.[257]
Mr Sahota, head of West Heath Junior School, told us that as a
new headteacher he had turned to consultants outside education
for advice.[258] Heads,
Teachers and Industry (HTI), an organisation which offers secondment
opportunities in the business community for headteachers, gave
us evidence about the benefits for heads of going on such secondments.
However they admitted that, unfortunately, the majority of heads
had not been on a secondment.[259]
SHA expressed regret that with the implementation of LMS, opportunities
for secondment after a period of time as a serving headteacher
has all but disappeared. SHA argued that carefully structured
secondment would provide greater development for headteachers
than current arrangements.[260]
The NPHA noted that headteachers in the Far East are granted a
one year sabbatical after five years of service and argued that
this would allow headteachers to update their professional knowledge
or undertake research.[261]
The local authority education officers who gave us evidence told
us that headteachers needed "mid-career stimulus and development",
including opportunities for headteacher exchange, secondment and
sabbaticals.[262]

137. Denominational schools have access to a range
of dedicated support. For instance, the Church of England Board
of Education produces teaching materials and other publications
for its schools and works with the Anglican teacher training colleges
to develop courses for teachers and headteachers (including an
MA by distance learning). Some dioceses offer in-service training
provision, sometimes in partnership with the LEA. There are regular
diocesan meetings of headteachers. The Board of Education also
supports the training of inspectors of denominational education
under Section 23 of the School Inspections Act 1996, and has produced
a handbook for such inspectors. In smaller LEAs, church schools
have tend to group together more to provide each other with mutual
support.[263] The Catholic
Church, through the Catholic Board of Education at the national
level and Schools and Colleges Commissions at diocesan level,
provides similar support for Catholic schools.

138. Finally, and very importantly, many headteachers
gain much valuable support and advice from other headteachers.
Ms Putman, for instance, told us that other headteachers could
understand what she was trying to do and whythey "understood
the realities of the difficulties of the job" and she could
be "really honest" with them.[264]
Mr Atkinson felt that headteachers were increasingly "looking
sideways to colleagues to gain experience and no doubt to pass
on experience", rather than looking upwards to the LEA. Mr
Atkinson believed that, more and more, heads would be looking
for the support and services they needed from a wide range of
sourcesthe LEA, other schools or clusters of schools, and
private suppliers: "The best manager and the best leader
will always, in a pragmatic way, look for where the best is on
offer for their children."[265]

140. A large number of the submissions presented
to us expressed general discontent with the present system of
appraisal. The TTA stated that "appraisal of headteachers
has often not been effective in securing a link between targets
set and school improvement" and involved an inconsistency
about accountability to governors and parents.[267]
The SEO/SCEO joint submission regarded it as suffering from being
"externally imposed" and "operating in isolation".[268]
TLO Ltd told us that headteacher appraisal was "not sufficiently
focussed on increasing the headteacher's impact on the performance
of the school" and had in any case "all but disappeared
in many areas".[269]
The NPHA stated that the appraisal process had deteriorated since
its introduction.[270]
SHA noted that appraisal has been a significant help for some
headteachers, but too many had been left "wondering whether
the considerable time spent by appraisers and appraisee could
not have been more profitably used in personal development".[271]

141. There was a clear difference of opinion between
representatives of LEAs and of governing bodies as to who should
take the lead in appraising headteachers' performance. One Chair
of Governors told us: "It is all well and good for the LEA
to send somebody to appraise the headteacher but that person may
not have the same vision as the headteacher so I believe it should
be someone with experience, maybe a mentor for instance, as well
as the governing body who appraises the headteacher."[272]
The NAGM argued that appraisal should pay more attention to promoting
successful partnership between the head and the governing body.[273]
The other association representing governors, the NGC, also expressed
concern about current arrangements for appraisal, and believed
that the governing body should "play its proper part"
in the appraisal process.[274]
We have noted (in paragraphs 52-53 above) the STRB's concerns
about the extent to which all governing bodies are capable of
setting criteria and measuring performance against them; this
is obviously relevant to any enhancement of their role in the
formal appraisal process.

142. Many witnesses argued for changes to the appraisal
system or for a new approach altogether. Mr John Howson argued
that there was much to be said for team appraisal as well as the
appraisal of individuals, and that appraisal must be undertaken
by those trained to do it and at the senior staff level.[275]
One of the headteachers who attended the informal seminar argued
that the "360 degree" appraisal of the headteacher in
place at his primary school, involving all stakeholders in the
schoolgovernors, staff and representatives of pupils and
parentshad had highly beneficial effects on school performance.[276]
SHA argued for the current system of appraisal to be replaced
by a process of "performance review", carried out by
practising headteachers and overseen by the General Teaching Council.[277]
The NASUWT, differing from most other contributors to the inquiry,
argued that the introduction of LEA development plans, OFSTED
inspections, published targets and monitoring had removed the
necessity for a separate, formal appraisal process for headteachers.[278]

144. Although Ms Morris said that Ministers had no
proposals to introduce an "explicit link" between appraisal
and pay and competence issues, she stated that "in the case
of heads ... it seems sensible that targets for appraisal purposes
should take account of performance criteria agreed for pay purposes".[280]
This theme was taken up again in the DfEE's submission to the
STRB in September 1998, which stressed the importance of arrangements
for salary progression continuing to be subject to annual review
of a headteacher's performance against previously agreed targets.[281]

150. The appraisers should be appointed by the
LEA and the governing body.[283]
As we have already noted above, the LEA can play a significant
role in helping heads find the support they need. The LEA's role
in meeting the aims of its Educational Development Plan will also
be relevant, especially if appraisal is linked to the achievement
of School Development Plans. The governing body's role is important:
in the best cases, they work closely with the head and represent
the interests of parents, staff and the local community. They
will also have been involved in the headteacher's appointment,
and we believe there should be a link between initial appointment
and on-going appraisal. We do not believe that the governors themselves
need necessarily carry out the appraisal, although individual
governors may be well-suited, through their professional background,
for doing so. It is the governing body's task to ensure that the
aims of the appraisal are satisfied, and they can do this by playing
a full part in the selection of appraisers and in working with
the head to ensure that outcomes of the appraisal are followed
up effectively.

151. At present, the majority of headteacher appraisal
is carried out by other headteachers or by LEA advisers. Evidence
has shown the value that heads place on having access to a diverse
range of advice and support from many different sources, including
other headteachers and their LEA but also the private and voluntary
sector. LEAs and governing bodies should be encouraged to draw
on a wide range of expertise in choosing the best source of appraisal
for headteachers.

152. The appraisal process must be linked with
a coherent structure of training and development, not least because
effective appraisal will help identify headteachers' training
needs. We have noted evidence that there is a limit to the
length of time that heads can continue to have a beneficial impact
on their schools. The then Schools Minister told us that he would
like to change the culture so that it would be regarded as normal
for heads to move on regularly.[284]
We believe that the appraisal process could provide an opportunity
for the appraisers to consider whether heads who have been in
post for a considerable period might be advised to move on.
Whether it should be directly linked with headteachers' pay is
a more complex matter. At present, governing bodies have the power
to award a performance-related pay increase to headteachers, based
on performance against previously agreed targets, although many
governing bodies have not exercised this option. The Schools
Minister has argued that appraisal targets should take account
of the performance criteria agreed between the head and the school
governors for salary purposes. We believe it would be better that
governing bodies, in agreeing targets for the performance-related
element of the head's salary, should take account of the outcomes
of the headteacher's appraisal process. (We consider this
aspect of pay further in paragraph 188 below.)

153. We have noted the important role governors
can play in the follow-up of appraisal outcomes. A role could
also be played in such follow-up by more systematic mentoring
for headteachers. Like appraisers, such mentors could be other
headteachers, LEA staff or people from the private and voluntary
sectors. It could be possible for the LEA to organise such a scheme,
for instance by compiling a list of possible mentors, [285]
or this could be done by the TTA, or the TTA's regional training
and assessment centres, or by the new National College for School
Leadershipwhich would be able to take a national view and
could put heads in touch with mentors who were outside the head's
local area (which might be useful for all sorts of different reasons).